Negligence; Domestic
Animals; Whether a Horse Belongs to a Species so Naturally Inclined to do
Mischief or Be Vicious to Humans that the Plaintiff's Injuries Were Reasonably
Foreseeable. The plaintiff parents brought this action on behalf of their
minor son seeking to recover for injuries the boy sustained when he was bitten
by a horse named Scuppy at the defendants' place of business. The defendants
moved for summary judgment, claiming that they were entitled to judgment as a
matter of law because they had neither actual nor constructive notice that
Scuppy had a vicious disposition or propensities. The trial court granted their
motion, finding that the defendants owed no duty to the plaintiffs because the
plaintiffs failed to make the necessary showing that Scuppy, and not horses in
general, had a tendency to bite people or other horses. The Appellate Court
(133 Conn. App. 630) reversed, finding that the evidence presented raised a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants had notice of
Scuppy's tendency to bite. The Appellate Court cited Bischoff v. Cheney,
89 Conn. 1 (1914), as instructing that a negligence claim concerning an injury
inflicted by a domestic animal involves inquiry not only into whether the
possessor knew that the specific animal in question was vicious, but also into
whether the animal belongs to a class with dangerous propensities. It thus
found that the requisite notice may be established by proof of the natural
propensities of a species and therefore that the trial court improperly concluded
that the plaintiffs were required to show that Scuppy, and not horses in
general, possessed a natural tendency to bite. The Appellate Court noted that
the plaintiffs consistently maintained that Scuppy is a domestic animal that
possesses a dangerous propensity normal to its class and that the defendants
were required to exercise a degree of care over Scuppy commensurate with the animal's
character. Moreover, it stated that the defendants were required to know the
characteristics of the species and its normal habits and tendencies, and it
found that they had a duty to realize that even ordinarily gentle animals are
likely to be dangerous under particular circumstances and therefore to exercise
reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm. It next determined that the
pleadings, affidavits and other proof submitted raised a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether the defendants had notice that Scuppy belonged to a class of
domestic animal that possessed a natural propensity to bite, thereby endangering
invitees such as the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court will now consider whether
the Appellate Court properly concluded that a horse belongs to a species so
naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious to human beings that the minor
plaintiff's injuries were reasonably foreseeable, regardless of whether the
particular horse has shown a prior vicious disposition known to the keeper.